An interesting debate going on here. With regard to identity and linked with Daryn's comments earlier, Edgar Schein's model of organisational culture would possibly enable you to consider the identity to be that aspect of its culture which is expressed in the artifacts of the organisation, e.g. McDonalds has the golden arches, a specific colour scheme, uniforms worn by staff, furniture, design and layout of facilities, etc.

Other aspects of the culture are then found in the values and beliefs of the organisation. The values may be accessible through publicity material, for example, but the deeper beliefs are much harder to access.

Also, going back to Herman's original comment, identity = that of the organisation (not the employees) whereas the culture would be those values and beliefs that are common to most or all employees (depending on the size of the organisation).

Organizational culture would include all tangible and intangible behavioral aspects of an organization. It basically is about how things are done within an organization. So to understand the culture of an organization one would need to look at its systems, processes & procedures, it's technologies, it's people & their behaviors, belief systems etc. Galbraith Star model is a useful model for understanding culture. organizational identity on the other hand could be equated to an organisation's mission, I.e. What the organisation exists for which can include its line of business, the needs it tries to serve & its approach to servicing that need.

Hi Bangani,

I studied this a little while ago, the outline is I think as follows.

"Identity" is something that characterise a person or organization, culture is a common behaviour of a group. Identity = 1. Culture = group / many.

So, identity is how 1 person distinguishes him/her self within a certain culture. These can be the same but not by definition.

Galbraith start-system is a nice system to get a general idea about a corporate culture but it does disputable assumptions about belief systems, behaviour, power, motivation, information, and direction.

Coming back to your question, I think the difference between organisational identity and culture is the level of analysis. A person has an identity, a group has a culture (shared identity).

Identitiy is more static and is a "picture" of the organization shared by the public and outsiders. Culture is more complex and dynamic and is an inside phenomenom

Organizational culture is combination of organizational value system, employee motivation, working condition and decision making pattern of the management. Good organizational culture makes efficient and productive organization. Organizational identity is established through organizational image, which is the perception of stakeholders about the company, developed over the years due to good and ethical governance. Conducive organization culture certainly helps in building organizational identity. Both together will create organizational brand image.

One is behavior, another is fuction to highlight self

Lijinwei, culture is much much more then just behavior. it is a very complexed construct including various forms of thoughts, beliefs, values, senses, stories, communication models, activities.... adopted in time and shared by an organization. there are of course material aspects of culture, visible symbols, and a lot of other pieces of a very complex system called corporate or organizational culture. Maybe to start with E.H. Schein on this subject.

Organizational culture: has to do with the way the company interacts with society, how employee behaviour becomes structured to facilitate a particular set of norms. This includes how employees treat each other and how the company treats its employees; within the organizational context. In brief, it is the relationship between behaviour, accepted norms and practices in the org at a micro and macro level. Inter-org-group dynamics, change over time and production/service approaches are also important considerations..

Organization identity: has to do less with the constructs that do change in an organization over time and instead focuses on the things that do not change. Due to the fact that they do not change they become identifiable and thus people identify with them - namely employees. For instance, values, symbols, products, processes, etc.

The discussion above shows that culture and identity are not well understood topics. The previous discussion illustrates that, in essence a simple question, is not that simple to answer. The person answering this seemingly simple question, reveals (partly) his/her cultural and professional background. This is also known as ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism and on individual level egocentrism comes back in multiple forms when we talk about culture and identity.

The Hofstede dimensions and definitions of culture and identity seem to be appropriate here, because all other definitions are subject to theoretical inconsistencies.

The person above is correct, culture cannot be explained in two paragraphs. So, just to clarify; realistically it would take 50 or more pages if one were to explain what happens in the organizations of: homogenous east-Asian societies, western countries, the Anglo-Saxon bloc, former Eastern-European states, India, the middle-east and why anti-Americanism has affected Canada.

I think the critical point here is the business model not the (ethnic) cultural one.

Daryn is right, firms "try" to replace national behavioural routines with corporate routines (practices), that's why firms can be transnational. But as argued by Hofstede, the values of the persons in the organisation do not significantly change. The key item is to differentiate between value's and practices. I propose now very careful and tentatively that identity may be associated with values and culture with practices. If we expand on this train of though we can find support for most of the arguements listed above by the other discussion members.

Herman,

Excellent summary, in particular the key separations: personal values vs. organizational values and values vs. practices (if I understand you correctly). This statement may be leaning in the right direction:

"I propose now very careful and tentatively that identity may be associated with values and culture with practices"

For instance, there are many multi-national corporations that maintain identities through core practices, products and services. At the same time, local or national cultures will influence what practices, products and services are provided; "convergence" might be the best word to describe the national cultural influences on corporate identities. Take McDonalds for instance: one can walk into a branch in Japan, Korea, France, Mexico or Brazil and will know that they have entered a McDonalds store through core identifying factors. Conversely the particulars: menu items and services provided may have been altered to cater to the local tastes, values, religious beliefs and cultural expectations.

If the discussion is leading in this direction, one might find the answer to the original question state by Dr. Judeh. While Herman is correct about the need for tact and care and to avoid generalizations with regards to comparison that have a cultural component; I will add that my assumption was/is, the author's interests are in the business model first and foremost. But, I will qualify the statement by affirming what Herman has correctly pointed out that; all should understand the need for cultural sensitivity.

An interesting debate going on here. With regard to identity and linked with Daryn's comments earlier, Edgar Schein's model of organisational culture would possibly enable you to consider the identity to be that aspect of its culture which is expressed in the artifacts of the organisation, e.g. McDonalds has the golden arches, a specific colour scheme, uniforms worn by staff, furniture, design and layout of facilities, etc.

Other aspects of the culture are then found in the values and beliefs of the organisation. The values may be accessible through publicity material, for example, but the deeper beliefs are much harder to access.

Also, going back to Herman's original comment, identity = that of the organisation (not the employees) whereas the culture would be those values and beliefs that are common to most or all employees (depending on the size of the organisation).

Organizational culture is about the values shared in an organizations. Organizational identity is about what others perceived about an organization. You cannot create a fake organizational culture but can make up a fake organizational identity.

Herman, there are roughly 20 definitions of convergence in the English language; for purposes of using a common language, I believe this is the one to which I was referring:

"the tendency to become more alike as a relationship progresses"

I agree with your view on culture; but to step out of the humanities for a moment and back into the business train of thinking; I have eaten at McDonalds in about 5 different countries, and I don't even like the food. I can tell you with conviction that the corporation has an identity that has affected cultures across the globe. An example of convergence, again using the McDonald identity as our model; stands firm: people wait in line, order their food, pay for it, sit and eat it. Now, each country has different economic capacities and social capacities. Therefore, the quality of some of the ingredients used in the food is either higher, lower or non-existent; relative to the Anglo-Saxon model, which I will refer to as the base level standard. Every culture that I have witnessed seems to understand the basic McDonald identity and perhaps even accept it.

If we define individual-national culture as a construct encompassing the concept of right and wrong, food cultures, religion, humour, value of life, perceptions, individual values: all of these important things are a product of our eco-social, environmental, psychological, genetic and most recently generational up-brining. I agree that they are deeply embedded in each individual to the extent that they engender a way of thinking and for the sake of clarification, a way of life. Going back to the McDonalds example, these things force McDonalds to alter some processes, policies, menu items and so forth. Halal chicken for instance, high quality hamburger buns in France, or the expectation of perfection by the Japanese. Having said that, the relationship is two way. I would argue that McDonalds has, rightly or wrongly, altered, at the very least, the consumption patterns, views on work-life and economic values of each country it has entered while at the same time maintaining its core identity. Note: I would not say it has changed the core values of every individual. Quebec residents are still majority French speaking Catholics, the Japanese still strive for perfection and Americans still hold dear the economic value of "cheap & lots".

These things can not be changed, easily, they can be changed over-time. In western democracies particularly, cultural values are strongly tied to economic values: "we spend money based on our values and priorities". In brief, one is a representation of the other and they are difficult to separate. You may remember that Walmart failed in Germany due to lack of cultural understanding. Finally the point on "convergence"; this was an off the cuff remark. However, individual acceptance of multi-nationals does seem to converge over time. The longer these companies operate within a nation, a given people become more accepting of the relationship.

Indeed, Daryn, culture of an individual is exactly as you describe - a conflation of varous sources of information, behaviour and values in the person. We could consdier that conflation to be an 'emergent property' of the person's life experiences. In the same way, an organisation's culture is an 'emergent property' of the interactions of the individuals it employs (whether leaders or employees), the country or region in which it operates, and the business model it pursues.

Norman, I just realized the question I was attempting answer is now gone.

Norman, I agree.

Dear Daryn,

Dear Norman,

Please take the firm size and market power into account in your analysis.

If I remember it correctly there was a lot of commotion and protest in India when McDonalds and other big multinationals wanted to enter the Indian market. Just because of their size and market power they could offer products and services for a lower price than the existing small business. In effect they would push-out the existing small business, as a consequence created a pseudo dependency on their products. Certainly in times of crises, people tend to be price-sensitive in their purchases. So, it may be not a matter of accepting the foreign firm, but more because of a lack of local competitors, that people eat at McDonalds.

Look for example to another (as good as) monopolist in the market.

Microsoft has captured the majority of the PC operating system market. That people in Europe or Asia are using a Microsoft operating system doesn’t mean that they embrace American values and practices. There is simply no meaningful alternative / competitor on the market. And how people are using the Microsoft product and are customizing to their local preferences is another issue. By cornering of their market Microsoft is slowing down the process of creative destruction, there are maybe better alternatives but they are suppressed by the incumbent. And the value that people are attaching to a product or service of an incumbent differs from country to country, age group, profession, and by social status. Corporate and National Culture (practices) are maybe converging in the long term, if the firm has significant market share, but not necessarily the values. This means if a native (local) competitor gets a foothold in the local market, its better equipped to cater to the local values, and the foreign competitor can only hold its turf at increased cost (offering a low cost alternative). This implies that the apparent convergence (conflation) of corporate and national culture is only a superficial one.

Your examples are nice examples how firms adjust their products or services to local values. With adjusting their products or services they aren’t adjusting their practices in a significant way but only their products or services. This exemplifies that national values aren’t changed by firms, but maybe the national practices are. French stay French in their preference for quality buns, Americans stay American in their preference for “cheap and lots”.

So, very politely, I disagree with the convergence (conflation) perspective if we talk about values (i.e. identity). If we talk about practices (i.e. culture) I can imagine a convergence (conflation) like change, but in my opinion this is a very superficial convergence (conflation) that can change back just as easily.

The concept of organizational culture

Organizational culture involves all organizational members, originates and develops at all hierarchical levels, and is founded on a broad-based history that is realized in the material aspects (or artefacts) of the organization (e.g. its name, products, buildings, logos and other symbols, including its top managers).

Thus, the concept of organizational culture includes material aspects central to the marketing-based concept of corporate identity. However, while studies of corporate identity focus on how these material aspects express the key idea of the organization to external constituencies.

Organizational identity

The discussion of identity within the organizational literature has developed around the concept of organizational identity, while the marketing literature focuses on corporate identity. Organizational identity refers broadly to what members perceive, feel and think about their organizations. It is assumed to be a collective, commonly-shared understanding of the organization's distinctive values and characteristics.

Corporate identity differs from organizational identity in the degree to which it is conceptualized as a function of leadership and by its focus on the visual.

Although both concepts build on an idea of what the organization is.

We view organizational identity as grounded in local meanings and organizational symbols and thus embedded in organizational culture, which we see as the internal symbolic context for the development and maintenance of organization identity. The symbolic construction of corporate identity is communicated to organizational members by top management, but is interpreted and enacted by organizational members based on the cultural patterns of the organization, work experiences and social influence from external relations with the environment. Thus, organizational identity emerges from the ongoing interactions between organizational members (including middle-level managers) as well as from top management influence.

Furthermore, we argue that as the internal-external distinction collapses, organizational identity is increasingly influenced by (and becomes an influence on) organizational image.

Hasan, you have introduced another dimension to my considerations.

At present the comments on here and my research into Schein, Hofstede and others has led me to look at the distinctions between organisational culture, national culture and the interaction of these. However, the idea of organisational identity as distinct from corporate identity is really useful.

The next aspect I need to operationalise for my research is the interaction and effects of these with individual's cultures.

Many thanks for your comments.

Culture is a complex construct. The construct associates with some ambiguous characteristics because of its complexity. People have a basic need to categorize and anchor themselves. Organization life is a prism, containing many inconsistency and conflicts. But people still want to find the "one" from organization life. So identity is authored to simplify the complexity.

Organizational culture is shared among members of orgaisation. Culture represents herois stories, success stories, sign, symbol, etc. But, organizational identity refers to how other view about an organization.

Organizational Culture is about a complex process of interactions among human inside organization, this interaction controlled by values, believes, background, experience, ethnic etc..., indeed this interaction will effect the decision process in organization.

Organizational Identity its about how others looking to the organization in terms of legislation and regulations.

Regards

Organizational culture is the workplace environment that is formed from the interaction between employees.

A single definition of organizational culture has proven to be very elusive. No one definition of organizational culture has emerged in the literature.

One of the issues involving culture is that is defined both in terms of its causes and effect. For example, these are the two ways in which cultures often defined.

http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/webnotes/Culture.htm

As Islam has stated, culture in an organisation is affected by a great mixture of individuals personalities and behaviours which are governed by codes of conduct, moral values, faith, ethnicity, etc.  I feel the culture is what arises from all of these interactions whereas the organisational identity is how this is perceived by those outside the organisation.

I know other researchers have used culture and identity interchangeably but it seems to me that Hofstede's work has taken this topic forward to the point where there needs to be a separation of the concepts.